How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year Watch

thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#121
Report 7 years ago
#121
(Original post by f00ddude)
no, the crown is the king or queen
the sovereign is the figure head of a state (country if you don't study politics), this could be passed on to the prime minister or other role in the case of dissolution of the monarchy, the title of "the crown" can not
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/print/tce_faqs.htm

You shouldn't argue about something if you don't really know what you're talking about

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign."

The queen only owns it in her role as the queen, not as a private individual.
0
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#122
Report 7 years ago
#122
(Original post by Arekkusu)
While France is "known" mostly for its art.
Funny you should say that. The crown "owns" billions of pounds worth of priceless art, and the vast majority of it is not open to the public.
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...tion/index.php
0
reply
Javindo
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#123
Report 7 years ago
#123
A lot of people in this thread are republicans and fair enough, that is your political stance. But the fact of the matter is this; Britain has been ruled by a monarchy for generations and it is a status quo which has kept us as a culture independent of most other natures in the modern era; do you really want to lose the last thing which is truly a British identity? I realise other nations have monarchies, but no other nation has a monarchy as old and strong as Britain, as much as I feel it is becoming irrelevant, it is the only thing that truly makes Britain, Britain.
0
reply
TheOFactor
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#124
Report 7 years ago
#124
(Original post by thisismycatch22)
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/print/tce_faqs.htm

You shouldn't argue about something if you don't really know what you're talking about

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign."

The queen only owns it in her role as the queen, not as a private individual.
The above disproves the following:

(Original post by f00ddude)
ts run by the crown estate, an organisation set up to controll all the monachs land, the organisation is owned by the crown (the royals)

your link pretty much dis proved your own comment in this aspect although their discription of the land they controll shows it also includes the governments land, rather than ambiguity over who owns it
1
reply
U.S Lecce
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#125
Report 7 years ago
#125
(Original post by Javindo)
A lot of people in this thread are republicans and fair enough, that is your political stance. But the fact of the matter is this; Britain has been ruled by a monarchy for generations and it is a status quo which has kept us as a culture independent of most other natures in the modern era; do you really want to lose the last thing which is truly a British identity? I realise other nations have monarchies, but no other nation has a monarchy as old and strong as Britain, as much as I feel it is becoming irrelevant, it is the only thing that truly makes Britain, Britain.
I resent this stupid argument that britain has nothing left but the monarch. Bull****! we still have plenty to be proud of. Stop belittling our country! The monarch is just one of many cultural aspects of this nation.
0
reply
Cheesecakefactory
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#126
Report 7 years ago
#126
If I met Kate Middleton in the street and didn't address her by her title, what would happen? Because there is no way I could give any respect to someone who hasn't earned it.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#127
Report 7 years ago
#127
(Original post by Cheesecakefactory)
If I met Kate Middleton in the street and didn't address her by her title, what would happen? Because there is no way I could give any respect to someone who hasn't earned it.
You should give her the same amount of respect you would give anyone.
And you should, if you were a decent person, give anyone plenty of respect no matter if they have 'earned it' or not.
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#128
Report 7 years ago
#128
(Original post by thisismycatch22)
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/print/tce_faqs.htm

You shouldn't argue about something if you don't really know what you're talking about

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign."

The queen only owns it in her role as the queen, not as a private individual.
i think its you who is confused, that article is designed as a very VERY brief overview of the crown estate, designed for people who are not studying the subject but are instead looking for a bit of infomation

the only reason it does not belong to the crown privately (as in they don't have the right to deny public access) is due to the way in which our countrys parliament and monarchy is stuctured
its quite complicated and in all honesty i don't think you would understand if you have never studied UK politics or the history of the monarchy (at a greater than high school or 6th form level obvs)
there are many levels to the problem, including the actual powers of the monarch, the agreements between parliament and the monarch, and the tax system
the land is also split, some of the land is owned by "the crown" purely to prevent it from being privately owned, most can be dated back for centuries and has legitimate monarchy heritage

the thing is, at this time the connection between the monach and politics is still very much there, the monarch has a lot more power than people think, but will never use a vast majority of it due to various "deals" with parliament and fear of overstating themselves and causing a negative image which would allow the government to get rid of them with popular support. however IF the monarchy was ever to be disbanded and de-throwned everything would change including the land rights
the land that is under the management of the crown estate would be split up, the monarchy has a right to a huge amount of this and upon a loss of their political statement would also gain the right to privately own the land (while they are in power they must give access to almost every non residential peice of land they own) this would enable them to sell it
tbh this is unlikely to ever happen as it would require a public uprising basically. the monarchy have the power to dissolve any parliament they like, the queen could today say "hmmm, i don't like the tories much im going to call an election" and although they can't take away parliament they can call an election at any point.

i probably shouldn't have written a block of text like that when so tired but hopefully it makes sense
0
reply
Mr Disco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#129
Report 7 years ago
#129
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Seen it before.

It does get ride of the 'but they cost us money' argument, but that won't stop the idiots from coming up with other crazy reasons to want to get rid of them.
It's true. I use crazy arguments rooted in the concepts of democracy, accountability and meritocracy.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#130
Report 7 years ago
#130
(Original post by Hylean)

The majority of the costs of the wedding were covered by Kate's family and the Royals themselves. The costs shouldered by the tax payer were relatively little and costs we would shoulder under a President in the same situation.

Oh, and the jobs created by the Olympics will end after them and the games have a history of costing more than they make.
The British public paid a minimum of £20,000,000 in security fees alone. If that's relatively little, then the Middletons paid virtually nothing. They only spent £250,000 on the wedding.

And no, only some immediate jobs will end when the London Olympics end. Jobs will be provided for maintenance and operational work. Small enterprise that flourish from the Olympics will expand, thus creating even more jobs. The Olympics is estimated to benefit the UK by £7,000,000,000.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#131
Report 7 years ago
#131
(Original post by Elbonian)
The British public paid a minimum of £20,000,000 in security fees alone. If that's relatively little, then the Middletons paid virtually nothing. They only spent £250,000 on the wedding.
Don't see why your bringing up how much the family paid ..
0
reply
Hylean
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#132
Report 7 years ago
#132
(Original post by Elbonian)
The British public paid a minimum of £20,000,000 in security fees alone. If that's relatively little, then the Middletons paid virtually nothing. They only spent £250,000 on the wedding.
Your point being? The security was demanded by the government who declared it a public holiday and the populace who demanded they be able to watch it.

Blame your countrymen and not the royals for that bill.


(Original post by Elbonian)
And no, only some immediate jobs will end when the London Olympics end. Jobs will be provided for maintenance and operational work. Small enterprise that flourish from the Olympics will expand, thus creating even more jobs. The Olympics is estimated to benefit the UK by £7,000,000,000.
"Estimated" being the key word there. Until it does, I'm going to hold my breath. Again, at the moment it's wishful thinking.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#133
Report 7 years ago
#133
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Don't see why your bringing up how much the family paid ..
The person I was responding to insisted.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#134
Report 7 years ago
#134
(Original post by Hylean)
Your point being? The security was demanded by the government who declared it a public holiday and the populace who demanded they be able to watch it.

Blame your countrymen and not the royals for that bill.




"Estimated" being the key word there. Until it does, I'm going to hold my breath. Again, at the moment it's wishful thinking.
How sure are you that a majority of the public demanded to be able to watch it. As far as I know, there is a lot of opposition to the Royal Wedding.

I wouldn't blame the public if they didn't have a choice..

Do you have a better figure than the estimated 7 billion?
0
reply
Hylean
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#135
Report 7 years ago
#135
(Original post by Elbonian)
How sure are you that a majority of the public demanded to be able to watch it. As far as I know, there is a lot of opposition to the Royal Wedding.

I wouldn't blame the public if they didn't have a choice..

Do you have a better figure than the estimated 7 billion?
No, but the fact it's estimated means there's every chance it won't end up being that way. Like I said, til it happens, it's wishful thinking and I'll be holding my breath.

As for the fact the majority in the UK at any given time are resoundingly for the monarchy and the fact that the wedding had huge ratings with people having street parties, etc. whilst watching it might suggest more people than not wanted to watch the wedding. Don't get me wrong, I do realise there were those who didn't, such as myself, but the majority made its views perfectly clear. One of the many reasons why it was declared a public holiday by the government.

As for the bill, again, blame the government and the nation. The government sent the police to act as security, the police are paid via taxes. The nation desired to watch the wedding, thus extra security was needed. If you think there wouldn't've been an uproar if the ceremony hadn't been televised, etc. you're delusional.

Such expenses would happen with a President, so you can't hold it against the monarchy.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#136
Report 7 years ago
#136
(Original post by Hylean)
No, but the fact it's estimated means there's every chance it won't end up being that way. Like I said, til it happens, it's wishful thinking and I'll be holding my breath.

As for the fact the majority in the UK at any given time are resoundingly for the monarchy and the fact that the wedding had huge ratings with people having street parties, etc. whilst watching it might suggest more people than not wanted to watch the wedding. Don't get me wrong, I do realise there were those who didn't, such as myself, but the majority made its views perfectly clear. One of the many reasons why it was declared a public holiday by the government.

As for the bill, again, blame the government and the nation. The government sent the police to act as security, the police are paid via taxes. The nation desired to watch the wedding, thus extra security was needed. If you think there wouldn't've been an uproar if the ceremony hadn't been televised, etc. you're delusional.

Such expenses would happen with a President, so you can't hold it against the monarchy.
So you don't have an estimate. Likewise, a 7 billion pound surplus is possible.

You're wrong to assume that the entire nation supports the Royal Wedding by simply witnessing 'parties on TV'. That's like saying Gaddafi must be supported by the entire nation when he televises his own supporters cheering for him. I highly doubt more than 50% of the population watched the Royal Wedding live. The original estimation was 20% anyway, which I'm sure you would agree is far from a majority. Based on that logic, you can't really say that the populace wanted to watch the Royal Wedding.

You can't blame the public for funding the wedding either. Just because the public pay taxes, you can't necessarily blame them for how the government decides to spend its taxes. Are you going to blame the public for the MP expenses scandal? Are you going to blame the public for the nationalization of RBS?

The reason security was employed was to prevent terrorism. Not because members of the public wanted to spectate the Royal Wedding ..

I'm sure you realize the president has a far more important role than the monarchy.

Besides, the UK is run by a Prime Minister. Not a President. :cool:
0
reply
Hazular
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#137
Report 7 years ago
#137
I honestly couldn't give a poo about how much they supposedly earn me. They're boring and we don't need them.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#138
Report 7 years ago
#138
(Original post by Hazular)
I honestly couldn't give a poo about how much they supposedly earn me. They're boring and we don't need them.
With regards to your signature: I first watched Hot Fuzz some 4 years ago. Funny to the MAX.
0
reply
shereez234
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#139
Report 7 years ago
#139
I am not from the uk. but i still like the royal family
0
reply
JGR
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#140
Report 7 years ago
#140
I don't see why people keep bringing up the money argument.
These supposed revenues and tax-reductions the royals bring are small change and would continue almost entirely unchanged in their absence or if they had never existed.
Tourists would hardly flock to Belgium instead of the UK just because they have would have a monarchy and we would not. The UK monarchy are irrelevant outside a fairly narrow set of circumstances/contexts. Tourists do not come to the UK because we have a monarchy, that's just nonsense. Nor does land/etc currently under sovereign ownership cease to exist in the absence of a monarchy. The relevant branch of government gets renamed and that is that.

Frankly, because they are largely irrelevant, it really makes no difference whether we have them or not. Life will go on either way.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (211)
39.59%
No - but I will (35)
6.57%
No - I don't want to (36)
6.75%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (251)
47.09%

Watched Threads

View All